Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are unquestionably many issues to grapple with in the area of public housing, as the Minister well understands, at least by the end of today. I’m sure he knew about this before and I admit that these are often complex issues and difficult to move forward on. I’ve given great consideration, paid very close attention to the issues brought forward to me by my constituents and others. I’ve settled with my colleague in bringing forward this motion on a reduction of 30 to 25 percent of the rent as a maximum.
I think perhaps the best way to portray this is simply to go over an example looking at the numbers. So I’d like to start by saying the combined gross monthly income of two minimum wage employees is about $3,120 per month. Rent on that income at 30 percent is $940. The net income after deductions is $2,500. So once their rent is paid they have about $1,550 to live on for the whole month. In the case I mentioned, there were seven in the family. That’s about $220 a month to meet the needs of each person. A pretty modest amount.
Now consider the same situation at a rent scale of 25 percent. Rent on their gross income would be $780 rather than $940, leaving them an extra $160 a month to live on. One hundred sixty dollars may not seem like a lot to the average NWT family, which our statistics show is making about $100,000, but the people in public housing are not average. They live across a huge gap in income that is getting wider and wider each year.
Milk in Yellowknife costs about $2.50 a litre. That extra $160 is the equivalent of 50 more litres of milk a month. In our smaller communities where milk is five or more dollars a litre, it can make the difference between milk every couple of days and enough to meet each day’s needs. It might make the difference between presents or no presents at Christmas.
When we think about it, a reduction to 25 percent is little enough. This government sets the minimum wage scale, which is going up to about $10 an hour, but the minimum wage does not reflect the government’s belief that it’s enough to live on. The government recognizes that public housing must be provided so people can have shelter when the minimum wage can’t buy it for them. That’s an example of our interlocking system of programs and policies to help those most in need. Government’s recognition of the need to coordinate program policies to meet real conditions is the reason for adjusting the rent scale from 30 to 25 percent. Thirty percent simply isn’t sufficient to ease that hardship.
When people struggle to improve their conditions and get work, rather than relying on completely subsidized housing, we need to help them through with our policies. Moving the rent scale from 30 to 25 percent is a good step in tuning up that help, and on that basis I moved and will support this motion.
Again, Mr. Speaker, while many housing issues will require a range of responsibilities and the opportunity for flexibility in interpreting which is the most appropriate response, this is an example of an across-the-board, straightforward policy change that can help every public housing client in this situation. On that basis, again, I look forward to any other comments from my colleagues on both sides of the House and I will be prepared to give some closing remarks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.